Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 14 (0.64 seconds)The Carriers Act, 1865
Section 23 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 6 in The Carriers Act, 1865 [Entire Act]
Section 28 in The Indian Contract Act, 1872 [Entire Act]
Section 8 in The Carriers Act, 1865 [Entire Act]
Section 100A in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
India General Navigation And Railway Co vs Dekhari Tea Company on 2 November, 1923
As we have noted before the liability of a common
carrier can be limited by agreement under the provisions
noted hereinbefore but that must be limitation of the
liability. This position was highlighted by the Privy
Council in the case of The India General Navigation and
Railway Co. Ltd. v. The Dekhari Tea Co. Ltd, and Ors.(1) the
Privy Council reiterated on the construction of Section 6 of
the Carriers Act that what was required in the case of a
person who answered the definition under the Indian Carriers
Act, viz., was that the nature of the contract entered into
must either have the limitation of the liability under the
Indian Carriers Act made expressly and in writing or the
facts must be such that for the contract in question the
contractor was departing from his usual business and
engaging in a different type of business from that of common
carrier.
The Indian Contract Act, 1872
Pearl Insurance Co. vs Atma Ram on 4 November, 1959
and others v. Queensland Insurance Co. Ltd.,(2) Pearl
Insurance Co. v. Atma Ram,(3) Baroda Spinning and Weaving
Co. Ltd. v. Satyanarayan Marine and Fire Insurance Co.
Ltd.,(4) Assam Roadways v. National Insurance Co. and
others,(5) M/s Indian Drugs and Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
Hyderabad v. M/s Savani Transport P. Ltd., Hyderabad,(6)
Rivers Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., and another v. Bisweswar
Kundu(7) and Vulcan Insurance Co Ltd. v. Maharaj Singh and
another,(8) the points decided and views expressed were
different from the present controversy, it is not necessary
to refer to those decisions or express any opinion on those.